The consequences of political correctness

[Namutree]

 

This is real messed up.

 

WARNING: May be disturbing. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by Namutree

[Valsuelm]

I'm absolutely no fan of PC/Cultural Marxism or doublespeak of any other nature. It's frankly fundamentally evil.

 

That said, this guy is making way too much of the factor the paranoia of being labeled a racist (which is a paranoia that does exist) contributing to the authorities not doing something, as well as the fact that Pakistanis are allegedly the culprits (he talks as if they are the only culprits).

 

Sexual abuse of children is far more widespread than most people in my experience think. It's a complex issue with many variables that might or might not apply in any given case. And it's certainly not a Pakistani only thing. I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it. In fact, there have been two high profile cases of sexual abuse of children in the UK in the last couple of years that I'm aware of.  Here's just two articles on those:

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15078957-sweeping-child-abuse-scandal-shakes-bbc-and-other-british-institutions?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2897836/How-Prince-Andrew-s-sex-abuser-friend-Jeffrey-Epstein-kept-list-nicknamed-Holy-Grail-great-good-Bill-Clinton-Tony-Blair-Mick-Jagger-Donald-Trump.html

 

There have been other high profile cases of rampant sexual abuse where people looked the other way through the years. An excellent documentary on what's arguably been the biggest is here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/secrets-of-the-vatican/

 

Why do people get away with it? Well, that's complex. A lot of people look the other way. A lot. A lot of people don't perceive the problem. It's often very hard to prove even when a kid comes forward (and they more often than not don't until they are much older, if they ever do), and there are a hell of a lot of evil perverts out there. I could tell numerous horror stories (I have an immediate family member who worked internal affairs and abuse cases at the state level for decades, I spent a year working at a drug rehab when I was younger (it might or might not surprise you to learn that many who abuse drugs were abused as kids), and I have people close to me that I met as an adult that were abused when they were younger), and more often than not the perpetrator got away with it (legally anyways, there are ultimately often other consequences). It's heartbreaking stuff really, as often the trauma of having suffered the abuse consumes the victim in very negative long lasting ways. I know of people who were born perfectly healthy who ended up in mental hospitals (some as permanent residents) due to the trauma they suffered as a kid. I've seen enough that I actually rank certain types of sexual abuse of children to be a worse crime than murder.

 

Anyways... I'll stop at that as I could write a book on the evils of sexual abuse and the subject is the evils of PC. Here's some videos on that:

 

Yuri Bezmenov

 

The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness
http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29077
 
The History of Political Correctness
http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28996
 
CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M
 
Patrick Henningsen - Hour 1 - The Politically Correct Matrix
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/12/RIR-131223.php
 
Cultural Marxism for Dummies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w&list=PLVCYZiC20h34ooDIC3BjPSiIDlmM9pvT9

Edited February 14, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it.

No doubt.

[BruceVC]

 

 I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it.

No doubt.

 

 

This case was different, the Pakistani men only abused and groomed white, British girls..no Asians 

 

So it was particularly appalling as here were these men basically practicing egregious sexual abuse and not thinking it was that bad because the girls they used weren't Muslim and therefore didn't need any kind of respect 

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it.

No doubt.

 

 

This case was different, the Pakistani men only abused and groomed white, British girls..no Asians 

 

So it was particularly appalling as here were these men basically practicing egregious sexual abuse and not thinking it was that bad because the girls they used weren't Muslim and therefore didn't need any kind of respect 

 

 

Just about no one who practices egregious sexual abuse thinks it's bad or has any real respect for their victim. Not having real respect for your victim is generally a prerequisite for abusing them, in any manner. The color of skin or the religion, of the perpetrator or victim, does not make it any less or more evil.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 I guarantee you there's Caucasian Brits born and bred on that island that engage in the same evils and get away with it.

No doubt.

 

 

This case was different, the Pakistani men only abused and groomed white, British girls..no Asians 

 

So it was particularly appalling as here were these men basically practicing egregious sexual abuse and not thinking it was that bad because the girls they used weren't Muslim and therefore didn't need any kind of respect 

 

 

Just about no one who practices egregious sexual abuse thinks it's bad or has any real respect for their victim. Not having real respect for your victim is generally a prerequisite for abusing them, in any manner. The color of skin or the religion, of the perpetrator or victim, does not make it any less or more evil.

 

Sure, all abuse is bad and abhorrent but you do get different degrees and methods of abuse and some are worse than others

 

And the link to them being Pakistani is relevant because it leads towards the issue of them not being assimilated properly into UK culture 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Yuri Bezmenov

 

The Narrative: The origins of Political Correctness

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=29077

 

The History of Political Correctness

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=28996

 

CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

 

Patrick Henningsen - Hour 1 - The Politically Correct Matrix

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2013/12/RIR-131223.php

 

Cultural Marxism for Dummies

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUt8iHVTO4w&list=PLVCYZiC20h34ooDIC3BjPSiIDlmM9pvT9

 

Ah, the sweet ramblings of the paranoid.

 

You have to seriously overestimate the impact isolated academic discussion has on the public consciousness to believe that mind-controlling America through the power of "cultural marxism" was ever a feasible plan.

[Zoraptor]

Biggest consequence of political correctness?

 

Chilling effect on free speech.

 

 

You might think that. You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Biggest consequence of political correctness?

 

Chilling effect on free speech.

 

 

Elaborate.

[Meshugger]

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is:

 

1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc...

2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is:

 

1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc...

2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

 

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc.

2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that.

[Fighter]

This forum is a consequence of "political correctness" for locking threads for no reason other than opinions someone finds disagreeable.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

This forum is a consequence of "political correctness" for locking threads for no reason other than opinions someone finds disagreeable.

 

Then again, if those opinions are objectively harmful, isn't that certain someone morally obligated to lock the threads in question?

[Meshugger]

 

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is:

 

1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc...

2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

 

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc.

2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that.

 

 

Wait, wait, wait. You didn't establish what political correctness is as a pretense before making those statements. But that was my fault as well for not typing it down in the first place. Because as it is for now, both your answers could equally be attributed to socialism, christian ethics and so on.

[Meshugger]

 

This forum is a consequence of "political correctness" for locking threads for no reason other than opinions someone finds disagreeable.

 

Then again, if those opinions are objectively harmful, isn't that certain someone morally obligated to lock the threads in question?

 

 

??

 

How do you measure opinions in terms of being harmful in an objective way?

[Fighter]

Honesty is very often incompatible with political correctness. Most of X is Y. If Y is bad and X is an 'opressed' group of some sort. You are getting lynched even if what you've said is true.

 

Now for the record I'm not saying that holding your tongue sometimes is bad thing.

 

Then again, if those opinions are objectively harmful, isn't that certain someone morally obligated to lock the threads in question?

 

 

That's just an objectively bizarre thing to say given the subject.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is:

 

1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc...

2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

 

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc.

2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that.

 

 

Wait, wait, wait. You didn't establish what political correctness is as a pretense before making those statements. But that was my fault as well for not typing it down in the first place. Because as it is for now, both your answers could equally be attributed to socialism, christian ethics and so on.

 

 

Since "political correctness" is generally a phrase used when complaining about being called out on behaving like a racist/sexist/etc. ****wad, the "not behaving like a racist ****wad" part was pretty much me establishing what I mean by political correctness.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

??

 

How do you measure opinions in terms of being harmful in an objective way?

 

 

People generally have goals; let's assume in good faith that forum administrators have the goal of "make this forum a welcoming place for as large a number of people as possible". It's obviously an oversimplification (e.g. just because there's a large number of nazis on the internet, one doesn't necessarily want to make their forum nazi-friendly in order to welcome said large number of people), but as a model, it'll do for now.

 

"Objectively harmful" in this case, obviously, means "counterproductive to the stated goal", because really, you can't define "harmful" in any other way than "destructive to some sort of goal you have" (generally self-preservation).

 

 

Do note that I didn't say said opinions were objectively harmful; I just pointed out that if someone finds them to be such, they have a moral obligation to do something about it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Honesty is very often incompatible with political correctness. Most of X is Y. If Y is bad and X is an 'opressed' group of some sort. You are getting lynched even if what you've said is true.

 

 

Well, that problem is easily side-stepped by the incredible feat of not making sweeping generalizations about broad groups of people, isn't it?

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Lets turn it around. I want proof, or a reasonable argument that political correctness is:

 

1) The best code of conduct compared to honesty, assertiveness, etc...

2) Enhances free speech and makes sure that unpopular opinion is not supressed compared to other systems

 

1) I see no reason why "try not to be a racist ****wad" would be incompatible with honesty, assertiveness, etc.

2) It does tend to encourage marginalized groups to actually speak up, so there's that.

 

 

Wait, wait, wait. You didn't establish what political correctness is as a pretense before making those statements. But that was my fault as well for not typing it down in the first place. Because as it is for now, both your answers could equally be attributed to socialism, christian ethics and so on.

 

 

Since "political correctness" is generally a phrase used when complaining about being called out on behaving like a racist/sexist/etc. ****wad, the "not behaving like a racist ****wad" part was pretty much me establishing what I mean by political correctness.

 

 

Oh, come on. That can easily be applied to anything since we cannot even agree on what racist/sexist speech is to begin with, neither do we know the context. Trolls use it to rile people up and **** use it try to put people down, which is not for example racist/sexist/whatever in itself. So please, a formal proof or a more thought out logical reason answering the previous questions if you don't mind.

[Blarghagh]

"Objectively harmful" in this case, obviously, means "counterproductive to the stated goal", because really, you can't define "harmful" in any other way than "destructive to some sort of goal you have" (generally self-preservation).

 

 

Hold on, if harmful can't be defined in any way other than subjective (because it depends on the goals of the person) doesn't that mean objectively harmful is impossible?

[Fighter]

Well, that problem is easily side-stepped by the incredible feat of not making sweeping generalizations about broad groups of people, isn't it?

 

Haha. Right. Side stepping. No it's not.

 

It's the opposite of easily these days. It's navigating a minefield where the mines keep shifting under your feet.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Oh, come on. That can easily be applied to anything since we cannot even agree on what racist/sexist speech is to begin with, neither do we know the context. Trolls use it to rile people up and **** use it try to put people down, which is not for example racist/sexist/whatever in itself. 

 

 

Wait, so if someone is being racist for the sole purpose of angering people, it's not racist?

 

Even though, logically, the people most likely to be angered by said display of racism are members of the race in question?

 

That's some shaky logic there, methinks.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

"Objectively harmful" in this case, obviously, means "counterproductive to the stated goal", because really, you can't define "harmful" in any other way than "destructive to some sort of goal you have" (generally self-preservation).

 

 

Hold on, if harmful can't be defined in any way other than subjective (because it depends on the goals of the person) doesn't that mean objectively harmful is impossible?

 

 

I prefer not getting second-degree burns. Sticking my hand into fire is objectively harmful to this goal. The fact that it's objectively harmful to my goal doesn't really change just because billions of people don't care whether I get second degree burns or not.

 

 

Well, that problem is easily side-stepped by the incredible feat of not making sweeping generalizations about broad groups of people, isn't it?

 

Haha. Right. Side stepping. No it's not.

 

It's the opposite of easily these days. It's navigating a minefield where the mines keep shifting under your feet.

 

 

Succeeding in tasks where one never made an effort to acquire the know-how necessary to succeed on said tasks is generally considered very hard.

 

Books being useless for someone who never learned how to read is not the books' fault.

[Meshugger]

 

 

??

 

How do you measure opinions in terms of being harmful in an objective way?

 

 

People generally have goals; let's assume in good faith that forum administrators have the goal of "make this forum a welcoming place for as large a number of people as possible". It's obviously an oversimplification (e.g. just because there's a large number of nazis on the internet, one doesn't necessarily want to make their forum nazi-friendly in order to welcome said large number of people), but as a model, it'll do for now.

 

"Objectively harmful" in this case, obviously, means "counterproductive to the stated goal", because really, you can't define "harmful" in any other way than "destructive to some sort of goal you have" (generally self-preservation).

 

 

Do note that I didn't say said opinions were objectively harmful; I just pointed out that if someone finds them to be such, they have a moral obligation to do something about it.

 

 

I am confused.

 

A board has a set of rules that you simply have to follow, whatever they happen to be. I really don't understand your reasoning of building communities with sets of goals, destructive opinions based on subjective experiences of the members, that in turn might be counterproductive in the eyes of the admin and/or the community? It just sounds like a overly complicated way to use "objectively harmful". Especially since we are talking about opinions here.